Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 649: | Line 649: | ||
I don't believe the straw poll accurately represents the discussion. It would probably be more accurately phrased as "Should the lead include a mention that 30,000 jobs were cut under Fiorina's leadership, without mentioning that by 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001?"[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 21:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC) |
I don't believe the straw poll accurately represents the discussion. It would probably be more accurately phrased as "Should the lead include a mention that 30,000 jobs were cut under Fiorina's leadership, without mentioning that by 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001?"[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 21:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
::I agree that would be a much better poll question. It is also significant how many people worked at HP. If ten trillion people worked there, then that would put the information in a much different light than if ten people worked there. When she left, there were 150,000 workers there. This is significant even apart from how many she hired and fired.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC) |
::I agree that would be a much better poll question. It is also significant how many people worked at HP. If ten trillion people worked there, then that would put the information in a much different light than if ten people worked there. When she left, there were 150,000 workers there. This is significant even apart from how many she hired and fired.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::It would be a ''differen''t poll question, not a better one. Feel free to start a poll to see if there is support for including the additional content proposed by CFredkin.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Clearer citation needed == |
== Clearer citation needed == |
Revision as of 22:27, 17 September 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Same sex marriage stuff is an opinion not political position
Supreme court made a ruling on this. Its now no longer constitutional to deny gay marriage. This would make her position merely an opinion and have no weight in the rule of law. I think this section should somehow reflect this change. Not by omitting but a touch up by smarter minds than I. And such an edit should be reflected on the other candidates as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.126.73 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Lucent
There is nothing here about the outsourcing of Lucent IT in late 96/early 97. One of the earliest outsourcing projects on record and a fiasco. American workers were laid off and it was 1 of the causes of the Lucent bankrupcy. And why was it a fiasco? Because no performance clause was written into the contract. As for source/citation - I am 1, I was 1 of the workers laid off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's appreciated that you want to contribute to the article, Mycroft 514, but we can't accept you as a "source" - that would be what we consider "original research", and is not allowed. Based on what you've written here, it seems you have a personal ax to grind against Fiorina, and that could lead to personal point of view and conflict of interest content. Also not allowed. If you can bring something that is neither COI nor POV and attach a reliable source (see WP:REF for more on that), then you're welcome to add content on what happened at Lucent. As long as it focuses on Fiorina, of course, and not Lucent - the article is about Fiorina. Too much on other subjects can be classified as undue weight, leading to much of it being removed. Hope this doesn't dissuade you from wanting to contribute, but we do have pretty stringent policies and guidelines when it comes to biographies on living persons that have to be followed closely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
There is plenty of other data out there - if someone bothered to look. And just as there are hundreds (thousands?) of HP employees that don't like what she did, so too are there many ex-Lucent employees. The fact is that under her watch, Lucent went bankrupt, and that is an important fact that should be in her "biography". I bring up the issue, get someone to write it up, so that my "biased" opinion won't be in it. The fact of the matter is that without a section on her performance then, the article is not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Lucent did not go bankrupt under her watch (or ever, as far as I can tell), but it did slip into unprofitability from 2001 through 2004, and lost almost 97% of its market capitalization from 2000 to 2002, largely due to irresponsible loans that were agreed to during her tenure. Here's an outside source about it: http://recode.net/2015/08/30/time-to-revisit-carly-fiorinas-business-record-before-hp-yes-so-lets-begin-with-lucent/. I agree it's relevant and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.190.158 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Performance at the undercard GOP debate
Fiorina was widely lauded for her performance at the undercard GOP debate, and I've updated the page on her campaign to reflect that fact, but should the presidential campaign section of her biography be updated as well? I didn't think that her performance (at the first of the many GOP debates which will come) was important enough to add to her biography, but now I think it might be, given that most of the information currently in that section is just criticism of her business past, it might help balance this article.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The accolades for her performance are fairly wide-spread and definitely notable per Wikipedia standards. I see no reason why it shouldn't be included in this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, notable; but she currently is not photogenic. Here picture in the article is better than her political appearances. And with the new CNN criteria, she will be 'top-tier' in the Reagan Library debate, Sept.16th. -- AstroU (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Original research regarding jobs at HP
This is what the source says:
This statement is based on the fact that the number of employees was 84,800 in 1999 and 151,000 in 2004, according to the 10-K reports. On paper, that certainly looks like an increase in jobs. But before the merger with Compaq, HP had 86,200 employees and Compaq had 63,700 employees. That adds up to 149,900. HP’s filings show that the combined company had 141,000 employees in 2002 and 142,000 employees in 2003. By 2005, the number was 150,000. In other words, the number of employees barely budged from the pre-merger total–and people lost jobs as a result. The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees. Indeed, Fiorina has acknowledged firing more than 30,000 workers in the wake of the Compaq merger. [1]
... and this is what somebody added to the lede: "by 2004 the number of employees was about the same as the pre-merger total"
, as a counter argument to the layoff of 30,000 people post merger. That is exactly what WP:SYNTH tells us NOT to do. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Winkelvi, Binksternet, Anythingyouwant: please discuss here. (a) This is SYNTH and (b) if there is a need to mention this with the proper context, the place for it is the article's body, not the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- This seems simply to be a situation where some editors would like the lead to proclaim that she fired thousands of people while deliberately omitting that she also hired thousands. It is blatantly political skewing, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am only objecting to the content being removed in total and the edit warring that is going on rather than actual discussion. I think the content could be condensed to provide verifiable statistics without the commentary and original research and give NPOV rather than POV. But the edit warring over it definitely has to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am objecting to synthesis rather than summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The facts are clear, after the merger she fired 30,000 employees. That during her tenure the company hire additional people (many of which were through acquisition) is a completely different matter. I don't oppose including something to that effect in the body of the article with the appropriate context. But we cannot and should not conflate the firing of 30,000 people in one stroke, with the normal course of hiring people over a period of several years and through acquisitions. Otherwsie what we are doing is violation not only NPOV (false balance) bit violating SYNTH as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I do think the content on the firings could be a little more summary-like and pared down a bit. As it is, it's (in my opinion) bordering on WP:UNDUE for the lede. But, I agree, we don't want to venture into synth and OR territory with the disputed content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it is either removed from the lede, or context needs to be added. Given the multiple reverts, I have chosen the latter. More to come. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Context is a fine idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it is either removed from the lede, or context needs to be added. Given the multiple reverts, I have chosen the latter. More to come. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Fiorina has been observed by reporters to have reduced the number of American jobs while she was at HP. Mother Jones magazine said that she outsourced jobs from the US to other countries, and that she prominently advocated outsourcing American jobs, campaigning against legislation to keep jobs in the USA. She said "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs." The remark brought wide criticism.[2] Fiorina stated her pro-offshoring position in the Wall Street Journal in 2004.[3] In the UK, The Guardian said she "shipped jobs to China."[4] Business Insider quoted a CNET piece saying Fiorina sent jobs out of the USA to other countries.[5] TechCrunch cited an SF Weekly piece about Fiorina sending American jobs overseas.[6][7] The Huffington Post quoted the Democratic National Committee spokesperson saying that Fiorina has an "affinity for sending American jobs overseas."[8] Barbara Boxer beat Fiorina in the political arena partly by making an issue of offshoring jobs.[9] Fiorina admitted to laying off 30,000 people and she said that "some" of these jobs "may have been [sent] abroad."[10] The exact number of jobs moved by Fiorina out of the USA is difficult to determine, but the National Review says "thousands". In that piece, a sympathetic Victor Davis Hanson said that the jobs outsourcing issue was going to be very painful for Fiorina in her 2010 campaign for US Senator from California.[11] Fiorina even outsourced her US presidential campaign.[12] I'm all for discussing how Fiorina affected the distribution of jobs at HP (and the acquired Compaq), but let's not put that discussion in the lead section. Instead, let's develop it in the article body, and provide a summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, a section on Fiorina's offshore and outsourcing hiring strategy deserves its own section. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I still believe it is UNDUE in the lede. I'll move it to the layoffs subsection. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's still undue weight to put in the lead that she fired 30,000 people without mentioning the tens of thousands of later hires. I believe this is fairly obvious, and that there is no consensus to have the first in the lead without the second.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- It does not make sense ... the fact is that after the merger she fired 30,000 employees, something that even Fiorina has herself acknowledged. That is not disputed and is widely covered in hundreds of sources due to its notability. That then HP went to add thousands of employees over the next few years, many of which through acquisitions is another matter altogether, and not that notable. Again, this is not a political pamphlet and it is not our place to create a false balance by NOR and SYTNH juxtaposition. I will post a request at WP:NOR/N to attract uninvolved editors' comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Request posted at WP:NOR/N#Carly Fiorina. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- There seem to be plenty of sources to support the significance of laying off 30,000 employees [13][14][15][16], which probably makes this fact lead-worth. As others have correctly asserted, we cannot use juxtaposition to imply a (false) balance by suddenly discussing the cumulative number of jobs that there were at some arbitrary future point in time resulting from M&A activities. Certainly our sources don't do that.- MrX 03:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Some editors would like the lead to announce that the BLP subject fired 30,000 people, without mentioning the very well-publicized (and juxtaposed) fact that she also hired tens of thousands of people. Here is the material at issue in the lead, which I think is perfectly appropriate:
“ | Following HP's gain in market share as a result of the 2002 merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 U.S. employees.[1][2] By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001.[3][4][5][6] | ” |
[1]Rushe, Dominic (March 29, 2015). "Ex-HP chief Carly Fiorina sets sights on Clinton as she nears presidential run". The Guardian.
[2]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010).
[3]Abcarian, Robin. "Profits may not equal success", The Los Angeles Times (May 20, 2010): "According to HP's government filings, the company had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. Together the two companies would have a total workforce of 148,100. But in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports. And in 2005, when Fiorina was fired, the company reported a worldwide workforce of 150,000."
[4]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010): "According to SEC filings, HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. That comes to a total of 148,100 workers. In 2005, just after her departure, HP's worldwide workforce reached 150,000. Net gain? In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'….It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad."
[5]Kessler, Glenn. "Carly Fiorina's misleading claims about her business record", The Washington Post (May 8, 2015): "[T]he number of [HP] employees was 84,800 in 1999 and 151,000 in 2004, according to the 10-K reports. On paper, that certainly looks like an increase in jobs. But before the merger with Compaq, HP had 86,200 employees and Compaq had 63,700 employees. That adds up to 149,900. HP’s filings show that the combined company had 141,000 employees in 2002 and 142,000 employees in 2003. By 2005, the number was 150,000. In other words, the number of employees barely budged from the pre-merger total–and people lost jobs as a result. The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees. Indeed, Fiorina has acknowledged firing more than 30,000 workers in the wake of the Compaq merger."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- How is this SYNTH? The sources provided make this statement repeatedly.CFredkin (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- How is this SYNTH? The sources provided make this statement repeatedly.CFredkin (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Long quotes
Long quotes should be avoided as much as possible and instead use paraphrasing, unless the quote is so unique that required a full quotation, per WP:QUOTEFARM. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- No. Your comment is incorrect. The policy clearly states in the first sentence: "quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia." Your simplified interpretation of the policy is flat out wrong.--ML (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cwobeel: Agreed, however, I don't think having a few long quotes is an issue based on the size of the article. It is my opinion that the article has become somewhat of a quotefarm. If memory serves, I think I mentioned this about a week ago. It should be located somewhere above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- MaverickLittle, please read the MOS guideline in toto. Quotations are indeed indispensable, but with the caveats expressed in the guideline (my highlights): While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. "Flat out wrong"? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Biggest layoff in history
The lead says (emphasis added):
“ | Following HP's gain in market share as a result of the merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 of U.S. employees,[7][8] the biggest reduction in the company's 64-year history.[9] | ” |
[7] Rushe, Dominic (March 29, 2015). "Ex-HP chief Carly Fiorina sets sights on Clinton as she nears presidential run". The Guardian.
[8]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010)
[9]"HP at Cultural Crossroads". IBS Center for Management Research. Retrieved 16 August 2015.
The italicized material is not properly supported by the cited "IBS" source, which says: "HP management announced that it would lay off another 6,000 workers in July 2001, the biggest reduction in the company's 64-year history." So the bit about the biggest layoff is with reference to 6,000 workers in 2001, not with reference to layoffs following the 2002 merger. We could do a little synthesis and original research to conclude that the layoffs following the 2002 merger were bigger than the layoff in July 2001, and thus conclude that the layoffs following the merger were the biggest in HP history. But the cited source did not make this connection, and so we shouldn't either. Even the description of the 6,000-person layoff as the "biggest" in HP history isn't something we can use if only one reliable source out of a zillion reliable sources describes the layoff that way, but here not even one in a zillion sources describes the post-merger layoff that way. So, I will remove that bit. Just to be clear, I don't doubt that the post-merger layoffs were the biggest in HP history, but it seems that reliable sources don't think it's a big deal how the layoffs compared to previous ones in HP history, probably because the number of people laid off speaks for itself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch, thanks. I have restored the material with the correct chronology at Carly Fiorina#Layoffs. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Net worth
The financial disclosures state a net worth of $59 million. How is that possible when she received $100 million from HP in total compensation? Just asking if there are editors interested in finding out more about Fiorina;'s wealth. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is just rough math, but keep in mind the $100 million number is gross income, not adjusted net income. After paying 36% to Uncle Sam, $100 million easily become $64 million. Therefore, $59 million is reasonable post-tax number. (Once again, these are rough numbers, she will have other deductions, etc.)--ML (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Puff piece?
I've read a few parts of this article. It strikes me as what a Fiorina publicist would like. Example: I read the AT&T section; it's a list of her positions and her rise, with no discussion of the reasons she was promoted so high, so quickly. It said "At age 35, she became the company's first female officer ..." without giving the year; this looks like, possibly, an attempt to hint at how wonderful she was instead of providing important data. (I added the year.) How about the question of whether marrying an AT&T executive 5 years earlier did or did not help her rise up? Leaving out the date, but providing the age, looks like possibly eliding a connection. That's one thing I wondered about. Surely there are sources. I mention that, with the tone and lack of explanation, as one example of apparent puffery. I'm not asking for attacks; I'm asking for a better article. Zaslav (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- There are several of us working on the article, Zaslav, and have been doing so for a while now. You are welcome to do the same. But referring to the article in total as a "puff piece" is, in my opinion, very inaccurate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Winkelvi. I don't agree with parts of the article but to call it a puff piece is way off the mark. We have been focused on her time at HP, which is the most notable part of her life so far. If you have reliable sources to support your claim then you are welcome to work them into the article, while maintaining NPOV. You state that is but "one example of apparent puffery". What are these other oblique other "example[s] of apparent puffery" to which you refer?--ML (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Zaslav Articles in Wikipedia are never "finished". I welcome your participation to help improve it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Evidently I read the wrong parts of the article. I understand your focussing on the most prominent and controversial part of her career, but I didn't read that part because it wasn't what I was looking for. I was wondering, due to something I saw at the NY Times Web site, whether her marriage (second) had anything to do with her rise at AT&T. I read the lede, the AT&T part, and the personal life. The latter two seemed to be puff-like. The intro says nothing much about her career before HP. I based my comments on that and nothing else. If I was wrong about those parts, I'm sorry. As for the other parts, I wrongly assumed they were similar, for which I apologize to you hard-working editors.
- I wish I had time and energy to spare to help but I am up against a deadline with a lot of work to do. Zaslav (talk)
- Cwobeel: Thanks for the link. An interesting article. I wondered for years what went wrong at Lucent. Is there a single telecom equipment company left alive other than Alcatel? And I'm not sure about Alcatel. Zaslav (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- speaking of interesting articles: :Cwobeel, have you seen this from Andrew Ross Sorkin? Neutralitytalk 01:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- That certainly appears to be an editorial piece, not an article intent on surfacing original reporting or balanced facts. (The same is sadly true of the ridiculously glowing counterpiece, also printed yesterday, from the WSJ. What a shame that neither of these newspapers can manage to actually write a proper article covering the highs and lows of her career. If you wanted something of that nature, you'd evidently have to subscribe to at least two newspapers...) Justen (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Opinion pieces can be used within some limits, including full attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- That certainly appears to be an editorial piece, not an article intent on surfacing original reporting or balanced facts. (The same is sadly true of the ridiculously glowing counterpiece, also printed yesterday, from the WSJ. What a shame that neither of these newspapers can manage to actually write a proper article covering the highs and lows of her career. If you wanted something of that nature, you'd evidently have to subscribe to at least two newspapers...) Justen (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Infobox
An editor made an edit to the article regarding the infobox and it suddenly occurred to me, the wrong infobox was present. I removed the political office-holder infobox and replaced it with the person infobox, per the articles on other former and current corporate CEOs. If she goes anywhere in the U.S. Presidential election (or is appointed to a cabinet post after the 2016 election), then the infobox can be changed for one appropriate to her political position. I don't know who changed it to a politician's infobox, or why, but it never should have happened. I suppose it could have occurred during her senate run. Nonetheless, I've filled the fields as best I could for now; I think some of it is a chronological mess, but I've spend more time on it than I should have per my IRL obligations at the moment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Kids of Messrs. Hewlett and Packard
The two founders of HP had a grand total of nine children. Two of them happened to control about 15% of HP stock leading up to the Compaq merger, which they ultimately opposed (following some initial support for the merger). This would be barely okay to describe in the body of this Wikipedia BLP of Fiorina, I suppose. But having it in the lead seems a bit much. We don't yet know how the other seven children felt about it, though perhaps we could find out. The opinions of the two sons who controlled 15% of stock are perhaps more notable than the others' opinions; and if that is so, wouldn't we be obliged to figure out who else controlled big chunks of HP stock, and recite their opinions about the upcoming Compaq merger? In any event, I think none of the nine HP kids ought to be in the lead of a Fiorina BLP, unless they're notable for some other reason too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- We report what the sources say, and we don't speculate about other sons and daughters. I have removed the obvios WP:OR from the lede. The reason the opposition is in the lead is that the merger was (and still is) controversial. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just check Fiorina's website in which she puts front and center her tenure at HP, and see the multitude of sources that report on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- We can (and do) say that the merger was controversial, both before and after it occurred. That can, and should, be done in the lead, but it does not require picking out and (incompletely) describing the views of two of the nine kids of H and P. It's okay in the body of the article, but it's too particular for the lead, IMHO. We cannot report everything in the lead, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Cherry picking
The source used to add this content: D"uring her time at Lucent, Fiorina added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit[40] and the company's market share increased in every region for every product." missed the following paragraphs in the source starting with "Dig under the surface, however, and the story grows more complicated and less flattering. The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared. Nor were several of her division’s biggest sales, including the giant PathNet deal." - This kind of cherry picking is not acceptable. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk)
- The article states that soon after she left there were issues "Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company started to collapse due to financing vendor equipment loans during Fiorina's tenure, " She did not actually take that away it states later in the article that she left the stock at lucent. Both sides seem to be present. Jadeslair (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cwobeel, what specifically are you suggesting needs to be changed in the section?CFredkin (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- We have an entire article as a source, and if we use that source we need to cover what the source says in toto. Read the source and you can try coming up with some text that reflects the source in proportion.- Cwobeel (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Two editors have questions your use of this tag. Based on that, I think it's reasonable to request more specificity regarding what you believe the issue to be.CFredkin (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Currently it sounds like you're suggesting that we should guess what and how much content should be removed, added, or changed to satisfy your concern.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Cwobeel, "Cherry Picking", huh? It is a fact that Fiorina did add 22,000 jobs. That is a fact. You can't remove that from the article. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact and it needs to be in the article. You haven't given a good reason to remove such a fact. The revenue did grow 58%. That's a fact. You may not, for whatever reason, want that in the article, but it is true. It is a fact that net income grew tremendously (from losing money to make tons of money) while she was CEO of Lucent. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact. It is a fact that sales in all departments grew. It is absolutely acceptable that this information be in the article. You haven't given one good reason to remove these facts. Nothing. “Tagged Accordingly.” I’m not even sure what that means. Also, you have put in the article information about the Lucent/Philips transaction, but not one of the so-called reliable sources that you cite ties Fiorina to the information that you put in the article. One of the sources might not be a reliable source because it is a press release from the day of the announcement of the transaction and the other article is a Wall Street Journal article that indicates that the Lucent/Philips transaction did not work out, but it does not mention Fiorina’s name, not once. This information should not even be in the article unless you can provide some kind of reliable source to support the information there. It looks like original research by you that attempts to somehow tie Fiorina to the Lucent/Philips failure. But you don’t have any sources to support your point of view.--ML (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Two editors have questions your use of this tag. Based on that, I think it's reasonable to request more specificity regarding what you believe the issue to be.CFredkin (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Currently it sounds like you're suggesting that we should guess what and how much content should be removed, added, or changed to satisfy your concern.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- We have an entire article as a source, and if we use that source we need to cover what the source says in toto. Read the source and you can try coming up with some text that reflects the source in proportion.- Cwobeel (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cwobeel, what specifically are you suggesting needs to be changed in the section?CFredkin (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Answering your question, CFredkin"
Carly Fiorina's troubling telecom past [18]
And unlike HP, where Fiorina instituted large layoffs—a fact Senator Boxer loves to mention whenever possible—Lucent added 22,000 jobs during Fiorina’s tenure. Dig under the surface, however, and the story grows more complicated and less flattering. The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared. Nor were several of her division’s biggest sales, including the giant PathNet deal. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
And this is directly associated with Fiorina's actions: Lucent and its major competitors all started goosing sales by lending money to their customers. In a neat bit of accounting magic, money from the loans began to appear on Lucent’s income statement as new revenue while the dicey debt got stashed on its balance sheet as an allegedly solid asset. So, if we are quoting figures we need to include context and critique of these figures per NPOV. Got it? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa! The "Got it" comment is too much. Why the need to bite those who disagree with you. Please do not be rude. The facts are the facts. When she was at Lucent, she created 22,000 jobs. That's a fact and it needs to stay. While she was at Lucent she grew revenue and she grew net income. These are facts. Now you have cited one (1) source that admits that these facts are true. Other reliable sources support these facts. They can't be removed because they might fit into whatever story you want the article to tell.--ML (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, I don't "got it". You've just provided excerpts from the source above. What specifically is the issue with the section in the article?CFredkin (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- really, don;t get it? In the article we have: During her time at Lucent, Fiorina added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit without the context is not NPOV. They used the loans with creative accounting to show increase in revenue. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and the para goes on to say: "Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company reported $7 billion in loan commitments to customers to finance equipment purchases (of which $1.6 billion had been dispensed), many of which were unstable startups.[42] The company's shares also began to collapse after her departure and eventually dropped to less than $1 per share, as part of an overall decline in the fortunes of telecom equipment companies.[42] According to Fortune magazine, "the company’s wild pursuit of growth gave it much further to fall."[42] The company later merged with Alcatel.[42]" Can you really not be aware of that? You added at least some of that content yourself.CFredkin (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- really, don;t get it? In the article we have: During her time at Lucent, Fiorina added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit without the context is not NPOV. They used the loans with creative accounting to show increase in revenue. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- That is not nearly enough. We are describing revenue figures as a fact without the caveat that these figures are from cooked books. The POV tag will remain on that section until we find a way to wave into the narrative what the source specifically says about it: In a neat bit of accounting magic, money from the loans began to appear on Lucent’s income statement as new revenue while the dicey debt got stashed on its balance sheet as an allegedly solid asset. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015 (UTC)
- You should probably start moving that to the Lucent page because it has nothing to do with Fiorina. She was not there at all during that fiscal year1, nor was she one of the ten people charged during that investigation 2. Your section "US$65 million in performance-linked pay" is taken out of context and later in the Forbes article it says she left the money on the table. Your last paragraph is not even about the subject of this article. The merger has nothing to do with Fiorina and is not attributed to her so why is it in this article? ""In a neat bit of accounting magic, money from the loans began to appear on Lucent’s income statement as new revenue while the dicey debt" are you saying the dicy debt has something to do with Fiorina? Because the author of the article in Forbes does not. You cherry picked and pulled a lot of items out of context, exactly what you said you did not want in the article. Jadeslair (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
actually we can't remove the whole thing:
That year, Fiorina chaired a US$2.5 billion joint venture between Lucent's consumer communications and Royal Philips Electronics, under the name Philips Consumer Communications (PCC).[1][2]
References
- ^ "Philip-Lucent Venture Kaput". RCR Wireless News. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
- ^ "Philips And Lucent Complete PCC Joint Venture". prnewswire (Press release). 1997-10-01. Retrieved 2015-08-07.
So if she chaired that JV, then we need to give context about it, which I did. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I should have been more specific in my introductory sentence. The information about after she left should not be included in the article. Unless it could be directly attributed to her. I am not going to edit because you sourced them, and policy dictates I discuss it first. Jadeslair (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) Also see page 103 of the book Backfire: Carly Fiorina's High-Stakes Battle for the Soul of Hewlett-Packard, ISBN 9780471465041, which clearly states that The new venture, which would have roughly $2.5 billion is sales would be called Philips Consumer Communication (PCC). It would be 60 percent owned by Philips ad 40 by Lucent. Florina would be the chair. And of course we should include what happened after she left, as these point are made by sources in the context of describing Fiorina's tenure. We follow the sources, not our opinions. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is the source that makes the assessment and from which the text is derived. [1]
References
- ^ "Carly Fiorina's troubling telecom past". Fourtune. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
CFredkin if you have concerns about that section, then you should address them to those that added cherry picked superlatives about her tenure at Lucent. But now that such material was added, we have to follow NPOV and provide the necessary context and provide a full picture to our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Cwobeel I'm not the only editor who has expressed concerns about your edits in this section. Pls seek consensus before continuing to restore them. In this edit I've removed content for which the sources do not mention Fiorina. Attributing the performance of the JV to her, when the sources don't is WP:OR. I also removed a quote from Fortune which is wildly undue and POV.CFredkin (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Currently the para on the results of her tenure at Lucent mentions both the highlights and the lowlights. In fact there's currently one sentence on the highlights and five sentences on the lowlights. Your attempt to add a POV quote on top of that is uncalled for.CFredkin (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Totally uncalled for, and blatant suppression of material that is not only relevant but properly sourced. Tagged POV until a addressed.- Cwobeel (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- from what I can see you were trying to put in information that was unrelated to the article Which is about Carly, not Lucent and introducing information that was cited in the Forbes article but only as speculation. The article used sensationalism and you included that in the Wikipedia Article. You introduced Contentious material about a living person. Although you used a source it was poorly sourced because it was not about the subject and implied a crime. User CFredkin is allowed to remove such information without discussing it. The burden of evidence relies with you, User:Cwobeel. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the lede describes all of these. The npov tag will be removed until you request the information be restored and prove that is should be included in the article. Jadeslair (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The material is relevant and well sourced. No one is implying any type of crime, but we can't have a one-sided presentation of Fiorina's tenure at Lucent: NPOV is non-negotiable. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please do not delete dispute tags until issues are addressed. We shall follow WP:DR to the letter. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- from what I can see you were trying to put in information that was unrelated to the article Which is about Carly, not Lucent and introducing information that was cited in the Forbes article but only as speculation. The article used sensationalism and you included that in the Wikipedia Article. You introduced Contentious material about a living person. Although you used a source it was poorly sourced because it was not about the subject and implied a crime. User CFredkin is allowed to remove such information without discussing it. The burden of evidence relies with you, User:Cwobeel. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the lede describes all of these. The npov tag will be removed until you request the information be restored and prove that is should be included in the article. Jadeslair (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Once possible compromise is to reduce the size of that section to the bare minimum, excluding the resume-like superlatives and the criticism, and leave it bare bones, with the material moved to the Lucent article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- You should refrain from editing as you might start an edit war, it might be appropriate to seek outside comments. I want it noted that I warned you about introducing defamatory content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)
- No need to template me; I am fully aware of policies. Now, if you can engage in a constructive discussion, please respond to my proposal above. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- There was no defamatory content whatsoever. Please stop making false accusations and engage in WP:DR. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- I did participate, see above regarding blp and I cited rules. When you tag an article you are supposed to provide a basis on the talk page which you did not do originally. I am required to warn you prior to requesting administrative intervention, so I did. You are not requesting npov edits in my opinion, you are seeking to introduce speculation that this person cooked the books among other things. Which I have shown to you that she was not even with the company at the time nor during the investigation. That is not npov it is pov pushing, hence no npov dispute. Jadeslair (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Good360
All we have in the article about this organization, is this: In April 2012, Fiorina became chair of Good360, a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan nonprofit organization in Alexandria, Virginia, which helps companies donate excess merchandise to charities.[112] As of August 2015, she continues to hold this position. Given that a lead should be a summary of the article, I don't think we need to have this in the lead at all, and most certainly not twice as currently. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Pre vs. Post Merger Employee Counts
The second phrase in the following statement is misleading when used in the context of pre vs. post merger employee counts. It's unclear when the 8,000 employees were acquired:
"By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP during her tenure."CFredkin (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The 8,000 employees may have been acquired prior to the merger, in which case they're completely irrelevant to the situation.CFredkin (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it is not irrelevant. We are describing the notion of Fiorina firing
150,00030,000 employees and then we are saying that in 2004 the number of employees was unchanged (meaning that they took in150,00030,000 employees), bit the fact is that there was a net loss of jobs as widely reported in articles that have challenged Fiorina's statements about her tenure at HP. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)- I've not seen it suggested anywhere that Fiorina fired 150,000 employees. What's your source for that? Regardless, your statement doesn't address my initial concern.CFredkin (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Read the article and the sources, the
150,00030,000 number is not disputed. Even Fiorina said that she fired150,00030,000 people (Not to mention the incredible disruption to150,00030,000 families, which she does not mention.) - Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Read the article and the sources, the
- I've not seen it suggested anywhere that Fiorina fired 150,000 employees. What's your source for that? Regardless, your statement doesn't address my initial concern.CFredkin (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It's an interesting question how many net jobs were gained (or lost) in the world as a result of her tenure, following the Compaq merger. Do we know? It seems that at most 7,000 jobs were lost but the figure could also be a thousand gained. It's somewhere in there, and it's sufficiently important and controversial that we ought to try and pin it down and present the info in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- This Politifact story [19] makes clear that the 8000 jobs added through acquisitions figure relates to "the same time period" as the pre-and post- Compaq merger employee figures. It also notes in passing that the 8K count does not include employees from outside-the-US acquisitions, but the overall employment figures do. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the problem here is inconsistency between WaPo and Politifact regarding the 8,000 jobs. WAPO says: “The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees" (amphasis added). POLITIFACT says: “In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'” So we need to find out what the "same period" referred to. Was it the period after the Compaq merger? Or Fiorina's entire tenure? Here's a link to the LA Times article. It says: "According to HP's government filings, the company had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. Together the two companies would have a total workforce of 148,100. But in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports. And in 2005, when Fiorina was fired, the company reported a worldwide workforce of 150,000." So we're not talking about Fiorina's entire tenure, but rather 2001-2005.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have put the "8,000" number back into the lead, and there are now three supporting footnotes at the end of that sentence in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the problem here is inconsistency between WaPo and Politifact regarding the 8,000 jobs. WAPO says: “The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees" (amphasis added). POLITIFACT says: “In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'” So we need to find out what the "same period" referred to. Was it the period after the Compaq merger? Or Fiorina's entire tenure? Here's a link to the LA Times article. It says: "According to HP's government filings, the company had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. Together the two companies would have a total workforce of 148,100. But in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports. And in 2005, when Fiorina was fired, the company reported a worldwide workforce of 150,000." So we're not talking about Fiorina's entire tenure, but rather 2001-2005.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Good. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, thanks for clarifying the sources.CFredkin (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Incidentally, User:CFredkin, there is now a discussion about this at WP:NOR/N#Carly Fiorina.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Awards in infobox
The awards list currently in the infobox includes a mixture of awards with other accolades that have nothing to do with awards. Some of these should be removed accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay and thanks for doing it. No need to clutter the infobox up with crap that doesn't apply to the field. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation
The section "Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation" is very critical POV as it does not describe what the two organizations are and what they do, it only uses one source. This source discussed their status as not being registered with the Santa Clara County or the Secretary of State for California. This section requires expansion with multiple sources to make it NPOV. I will attempt to do this, and am interested in any editors advice/opinions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- These sections are not needed. Best would be to make a short mention of these somewhere in the article, or to omit altogether given the lack of RSs that have reported on them. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
RfC: What material about Fiorina's tenure at Lucent should be included?
In the article we are describing information and figures related to Fironia's accomplishments at Lucent based on reliable sources. Should the material also include information and reports from the same reliable sources that challenge these accomplishments or that puts these figures in context?
Diff: [20]
Comments
- No, information about Lucent after Fiorina left should not be included. Unless it is directly attributed to her. Information about Lucent years after she left has nothing to do with her. Jadeslair (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes if the sources state that there were events that took place "soon after Fiorina left", and as a consequence of actions taken during her tenure. For example in this source: [1]
References
- ^ "Carly Fiorina's troubling telecom past". Fourtune. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
- Yes, to a degree per Cwobeel's reasoning above. That which occurred right after her departure, if it is directly related to her tenure there and subsequent departure. Information that is not directly related, no. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I find the structure of this RfC to be incredibly misleading. I agree with the text of the RfC, which is worded generically. However almost all the content removed in the diff is referenced to sources that do not actually even mention Fiorina. This is called WP:original research and is not acceptable, particularly in BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC) This has already been pointed out in the discussion located in the "Cherry Picking" section above. The author of this RfC has declined to address this issue there, but instead initiated this misleading RfC.CFredkin (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- The only content removed in the diff that is reasonably sourced is the following:
"According to Fortune magazine, 'In a neat bit of accounting magic, money from the loans began to appear on Lucent’s income statement as new revenue while the dicey debt got stashed on its balance sheet as an allegedly solid asset'."
- It was removed as WP:undue as almost all the content in the existing paragraph (shown below) is from the same source (and 7 sentences from the same source is enough already), the paragraph adequately represents the substance of the article, and the quote above adds nothing beyond being needlessly inflammatory.
During her time at Lucent, Fiorina added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit[1] and the company's market share increased in every region for every product.[2] During that period, Lucent and its major competitors started spurring sales by lending money to their own customers. Leaving Lucent in 1999 to join HP as CEO, Fiorina took with her US$65 million in performance-linked pay.[1] Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company reported $7 billion in loan commitments to customers to finance equipment purchases (of which $1.6 billion had been dispensed), many of which were unstable startups.[1] The company's shares also began to collapse after her departure and eventually dropped to less than $1 per share, as part of an overall decline in the fortunes of telecom equipment companies.[1] According to Fortune magazine, "the company’s wild pursuit of growth gave it much further to fall."[1] The company later merged with Alcatel.[1]CFredkin (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- Why is this misleading? I am arguing for the inclusion of material from sources that refer directly to Fiorina. There are hundreds of such sources, and currently there are editors like you doing everything possible to suppress that information, in violation of NPOV. Let the RFC run its course, please.- Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- This has already been broken apart, "Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company reported $7 billion in loan commitments" that has nothing to do with her. "The company's shares also began to collapse after her departure" has nothing to do with her. "The company later merged with Alcatel" years later so why should this be included? "The company's shares also began to collapse" wasn't that years later also and it started dropping because of what people did after she left and after the sec investigation which had nothing to do with her. I would love for you to try to address each item. This is not science but it is a fringe theory that even the author of the article fails to tie to her. Jadeslair (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- One option would be to reduce that section to the bare minimum, and expand in the respective articles about Lucent and PCC. This is is how it would look like, if we do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carly_Fiorina&oldid=677476509#AT.26T_and_Lucent - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'm ok with that.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Actually, I believe I was mistaken about this. I agree with User:Jadeslair that the impact of Fiorina on Lucent's performance after her departure is merely speculation.CFredkin (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Summoned by bot. The answer is yes, of course. Wikipedia is not censored, and all facts related to her career deserve to be in this article in proper proportion. I see no BLP or UNDUE issue related to this material. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- He is trying to include information that is a year or years after she left the company. She was not there at all during that fiscal year1, nor was she one of the ten people charged during that investigation 2. The investigation is what caused the stock price to fall and the loan commitments were from the people that operated the company the following year after she left. The merger happened about 5-6 years later. Jadeslair (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- We follow sources, and the sources clearly states that the decline happened soon after her departure, and that the risky vendor financing programs that Fiorina was said to have supported as CEO at Lucent were made during her tenure. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Unless it's Hillary Clinton. Then we call it "opinion" and therefore inappropriate for inclusion. Right, User:Cwobeel? Ah the hypocrisy.CFredkin (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't care much about that article, I just commented on an RFC. Democrat politician bios bore me to death; Republican politician bios are way more fun to edit - Cwobeel (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Cwobeel. If the sources make the connection, and they are reliable and independent of the subject, then we do include the material. If it is one guy writing for The Daily Mail or New York Post it's a different matter entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Unless it's Hillary Clinton. Then we call it "opinion" and therefore inappropriate for inclusion. Right, User:Cwobeel? Ah the hypocrisy.CFredkin (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- We follow sources, and the sources clearly states that the decline happened soon after her departure, and that the risky vendor financing programs that Fiorina was said to have supported as CEO at Lucent were made during her tenure. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- He is trying to include information that is a year or years after she left the company. She was not there at all during that fiscal year1, nor was she one of the ten people charged during that investigation 2. The investigation is what caused the stock price to fall and the loan commitments were from the people that operated the company the following year after she left. The merger happened about 5-6 years later. Jadeslair (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- It does indeed look like there's a significant amount of wp:synthesis and wp:or going on in at least part of this proposal. So, no to a fatally flawed "RfC." Justen (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, the article is about Fiorina so the information should be relevant to Fiorina. If the information relates back to when Fiorina worked there then it should be included. Information about Lucent after Fiorina left is not notable because it is about Lucent, not Fiorina, it is undue because the fact that Lucent merged into Alcatel years later after she left Lucent is NOT relevant to her biography, and the attempt to wp:synthesis all of Lucent's fortunes into the Fiorina article is a clear violation of BLP--as I stated a long time ago: it is a Wikipedia:Coatrack. The article is about Fiorina, not the long-term history of Lucent. I also agree with CFredkin (talk) about this RFC. These issues have been raised in other places on the talk page; however, they are being re-hashed by Cwobeel in a failed attempt to bring some legitimacy to the argument that information about Lucent (that is not relevant to Fiorina's life) be jammed into the article about Fiorina--information that would never be allowed in other politician's biographies. ONLY Information about Lucent when Fiorina was at Lucent should be included. The article is about Fiorina, not Lucent.--ML (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- If that is your position, why do we have in the article this text? During her time at Lucent, the company added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit[44] and the company's market share increased in every region for every product.[37][44] (corrected because you or somebody else erroneously quoted the source as Fiorina being the one that added 22,000 jobs and grew revenues). - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is my position. It is quite clear why that information is in the article because it clearly states that those were the numbers when she was with the company. It says "During her time at Lucent". It can't be more clear. Those numbers are tied to her service at the company and are clearly notable to this article about her. Also, I noticed that you edited the sentence before you made this comment to say that "the company" did these things, not Fiorina. But of course you have been a loud advocate for saying in the HP Layoffs section that Fiorina is to blame for the layoffs. It is very clear that you want Fiorina to take the blame for layoffs but when jobs are created she doesn't get any credit. It does not seem to be a NPOV presentation of the track record.--ML (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- At Lucent, she ran Operations, at HP she was CEO. Big difference. If you don't understand the difference between a CEO and a someone running corporate operations, then you should not be commenting on these matters. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- And, by the way, even Fiorina herself admits firing 30,000 employees. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is my position. It is quite clear why that information is in the article because it clearly states that those were the numbers when she was with the company. It says "During her time at Lucent". It can't be more clear. Those numbers are tied to her service at the company and are clearly notable to this article about her. Also, I noticed that you edited the sentence before you made this comment to say that "the company" did these things, not Fiorina. But of course you have been a loud advocate for saying in the HP Layoffs section that Fiorina is to blame for the layoffs. It is very clear that you want Fiorina to take the blame for layoffs but when jobs are created she doesn't get any credit. It does not seem to be a NPOV presentation of the track record.--ML (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
UNDUE quote?
Why was a quote by the former chairman of Compaq undue?[21] NPOV tells us to describe significant viewpoints, and I would argue that former chairman of Compaq's viewpoint is significant. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- You need to stop with the POV pushing by adding inflammatory quotes to this BLP. WP is not a good venue for advancing your political agenda.CFredkin (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC) The edits you've made which are currently in dispute are all either original research and attributed to sources that don't even mention Fiorina or inflammatory, opinion-based quotes from bystanders. Enough is enough.CFredkin (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rather than attack me, I would appreciate if you address my question above. Is the chairman of Compaq a "passerby" and not a significant opinion? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're the one who initiated the personal attacks here with claims of NPOV editing and whitewashing. It's not clear to me why I should answer further questions from you at this point until you address the issue of original research in your disputed edits above.CFredkin (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Rather than attack me, I would appreciate if you address my question above. Is the chairman of Compaq a "passerby" and not a significant opinion? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(←) It seems frankly as though we're reaching somewhat desperately to include quotes in the article that paint her in one light or another. As has been advised repeatedly here by neutral observers, we should stick with facts — with perhaps an occasional quote that provides indispensable context to those facts. Involved parties, Wall Street analysts, and those with axes to grind or favour to curry really aren't appropriate for a wp:blp. Justen (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Justen that there is way, way, way, way too many quotes in the article. What is seems to me is that Cwobeel wants to focus on making all aspects of her business career to look like a total failure. He is putting in every single quote from anyone that ever said anything negative about her time at HP. Also, he has one source (just one source!) that attempts to be negative about her time as a leader at Lucent and wants that one source to be the sole focus of what the article says about Fiorina's time at Lucent. It is not a fair representation. There is absolutely no need to have 5, 6, or 7 different quotes from various sources talking about how horrible they believe Fiorina was as a CEO at HP. Also, he wants the article to only quote the one negative source he can find about her time as a leader at Lucent. That one source that he wants to quote over and over again (essentially wanting to quote the whole article) admits that when she left Lucent her numbers were outstanding (that's a fact they were outstanding). Her numbers when she left Lucent were so outstanding that they supplied the reasoning for: (1) her being named by Fortune "The Most Powerful Women in American Business" and (2) why she was offered the CEO position of HP. The fact that she had those unbelievable numbers led to Fortune honor and the HP CEO position. There is reliable source after reliable source that talks about her time at Lucent in laudatory terms. But Cwobeel will not allow those reliable sources in the section. Why? I don't know but I only think that he wants the ATT/Lucent section to be one long list of negative comments about her business career--just like the HP CEO section, which is one long list of 5, 6, 7, or 8 quotes saying the same negative thing in just different ways. I'm not arguing that the HP CEO section should ignore the negativity but the redundancy is wrong. For example:
- (1) In contrast, Arianna Packard, granddaughter of HP cofounder David Packard, wrote in 2010 that "I know a little bit about Carly Fiorina, having watched her almost destroy the company my grandfather founded."
- Do we really need to quote Arianna Packard? The Packard's clearly have a bone to pick so you really can't call her a unbiased source.
- (2) The New York Times described the ousting as an "ignominious end to a six-year run", and noted that her personality and management style ultimately led to her demise.
- Is this comment really different than Number 3 below? I don't think so. They say the same thing.
- (3) According to The Fiscal Times, Fiorina's tenure at HP "failed to reinvigorate the iconic Silicon Valley company, and it tarnished her credentials as an executive".
- (4) Following her resignation from HP, Fiorina was ranked as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time.
- How is this generic comment any different than Number 5 below? They are redundant to each other.
- (5) In 2008, InfoWorld grouped her with a list of products and ideas as flops, declaring her tenure as CEO of HP to be the sixth worst tech flop of all-time and characterizing her as the "anti-Steve Jobs" for reversing the goodwill of American engineers and alienating existing customers.
- (6) Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg pointed out Fiorina's downside, as a vice president running mate for McCain, "is rather easy to sketch out" because Fiorina would "become a talking point for Democrats" who would focus on Fiorina's severance package and her management style. Rothenberg concluded that Fiorina was "like a dream come true" for Democratic opposition researchers.
- How is this quote any different than Number 7 below? They are different. They are redundant. Oh, and Sonnefeld is a consultant to the Packard family so he is inherently biased.
- (7) Yale business management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld stated that McCain's pick of Fiorina to assist with the McCain presidential campaign showed "a blind spot in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality", giving her “street bully” leadership style a platform.--ML (talk) 00
- 43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please re-read WP:NPOV, which states unequivocally that it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - There are a preponderance of sources that put in question Fiorina's accomplishments, or that pass substantial criticism. That is a fact, and in Wikipedia we report these significant opinions and do not, I repeat, do not present a false balance. See also below for more of the same. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Business career
The problem we have in this article is that an overwhelming number of sources, post her HP tenure and with the benefit of hindsight, describe Fiorina's business career as flawed and underwhelming (to put it mildly). Such scrutiny is expected of a person that sets herself as a candidate for the Presidency of the U.S. And yet, the article as it stands now presents an outdated overview of her career, and does not include the detail analysis and commentary that such scrutiny has generated. Granted, supporters of Florina among us may want to suppress such analysis and commentary, but given that her business career is a central claim of this person's notability, we ought to put our partisanship aside and present all significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources, in the correct proportions. Otherwise, we are not serving our readers well, and we are violating WP:NPOV by presenting a false balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Some sources
|
---|
|
- I agree that our article should reflect, as you said, all significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources in the correct proportions, including the criticism as well as the praise. The '07 New Yorker piece, in particular, is the kind of in-depth piece we should try to draw from. Neutralitytalk 03:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- You are a good editor and able to compose good prose from sources, so please lend a hand. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take a look over the next few days. Neutralitytalk 05:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- You are a good editor and able to compose good prose from sources, so please lend a hand. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that our article should reflect, as you said, all significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources in the correct proportions, including the criticism as well as the praise. The '07 New Yorker piece, in particular, is the kind of in-depth piece we should try to draw from. Neutralitytalk 03:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- As long as this ridiculous stance is being maintained, I think all negative commentary regarding Fiorina's tenure at HP should likewise be relegated to Hewlett-Packard.CFredkin (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- What has this to do with Clinton? The RFC there is about presenting an opinion as a fact, which we should never do. What we are discussing here is presenting a prevalent opinion as opinions. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- And by the way, I am not a supporter of Clinton. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- CFredkin are you a Fiorina supporter? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- She's not my top choice as a presidential candidate by a long shot.CFredkin (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, Cwobeel, stop with the BS argument that the Hillary Clinton article does not apply here. Of course it applies here. There is no way that long, negative quotes from political opponents of Hillary Clinton would be allowed in the Clinton article. All of that information and quotes are pushed into other articles, articles about Whitewater or Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr, etc. We are not editing this article in vacuum. The redundancy and undue weight issues are not being ignored by the editors of the Hillary Clinton article like they are here. The Hillary Clinton article is quite instructive so stop attempting to shut down anyone who brings up the double standard.--ML (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- The sources provided above are NOT political. These are sources from the date in which Fiorina was fired, which was covered by a multitude of sources. If you take the time to read these sources then you will see that these sources are pretty neutral. They could not be political, because Fiorina was not into politics at that time. These assessments are 100% on her performance as an executive. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- (OT: I don't usually edit articles on Democrat politicians, so please do not tar my name on issues of double standards). - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- OMG. You sound like Br'er Rabbit. The comments above concerning the Hillary Clinton article are not about you. (You obviously are trying your best to make them about you.) The comments about the Clinton article make the excellent point that the long list of negative quotes about Fiorina would never fly in the Hillary Clinton article. That's a fact. It is not about you and it is not about politics. It is about making a point about editing this particular article. This article has way, way, way too many long negative quotes about Fiorina--some by dubious sources like a college age member of the Packard family--that have been jammed into the article, making the article out of whack with NPOV. Its not about you. Its about making this article better.--ML (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- If there are a lot of quotes and critical commentary, it is because her career has attracted that type of criticism. In WP we report what reliable sources say, in proportion of its coverage. That is what NPOV is all about, otherwise we will be presenting a false balance. The article requires much more material about the reception she has received over the years by the financial press while she was an executive. We are not even close to complete the article in that regard. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- OMG. You sound like Br'er Rabbit. The comments above concerning the Hillary Clinton article are not about you. (You obviously are trying your best to make them about you.) The comments about the Clinton article make the excellent point that the long list of negative quotes about Fiorina would never fly in the Hillary Clinton article. That's a fact. It is not about you and it is not about politics. It is about making a point about editing this particular article. This article has way, way, way too many long negative quotes about Fiorina--some by dubious sources like a college age member of the Packard family--that have been jammed into the article, making the article out of whack with NPOV. Its not about you. Its about making this article better.--ML (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, Cwobeel, stop with the BS argument that the Hillary Clinton article does not apply here. Of course it applies here. There is no way that long, negative quotes from political opponents of Hillary Clinton would be allowed in the Clinton article. All of that information and quotes are pushed into other articles, articles about Whitewater or Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr, etc. We are not editing this article in vacuum. The redundancy and undue weight issues are not being ignored by the editors of the Hillary Clinton article like they are here. The Hillary Clinton article is quite instructive so stop attempting to shut down anyone who brings up the double standard.--ML (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- She's not my top choice as a presidential candidate by a long shot.CFredkin (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Resignation
The resignation section is incomplete in its current state. This was the most dramatic aspect of her entire career, and as such it deserves expansion, with not only details on the resignation itself, but also the considerable coverage it received, and the viewpoints of the financial press both in the US and abroad. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I will provide a list of such sources here, for editors to draw from as we expand that section. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are a few. Note that at that time, Fiorina was not a politician running for President, and thus the analysis of her performance at HP was untainted by partisanship.
- Fiorina out, HP stock soars, CNN Money [31]
- Fiorina resigns as chief of HP, BBC [32]
- H-P's Board Ousts Fiorina as CEO, Wall Street Journal [33]
- The Inside Story Of Carly's Ouster, Bloomberg Business [34]
- Fiorina Exiting Hewlett-Packard With More Than $42 Million [35]
- Hewlett-Packard Forces Celebrity CEO to Quit, WaPo [36]
We should use these sources to describe how her dismissal from HP was received at the time, and follow that up with recent commentary that have the benefit of hindsight. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Cwobeel removal AT&T and Lucent content
CwobeelThe newsource says " For example, when Hewlett-Packard granted new CEO Carly Fiorina restricted stock worth about $65 million and 600,000 stock options, the company specified that the awards compensated her for stock and options she forfeited when she left Lucent Technologies." which confirms what the other source says, you have removed content without context, contrary to your statements on the talk page. "The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared" It later says: "Fiorina’s stock and options were still worth a mint. (A total of $85 million, she says.) HP gave her $65 million worth of restricted stock to compensate her for the Lucent stock and options she was leaving behind."Jadeslair (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- The two are separate issues. Fiorina collected $65 MM from Lucent during her tenure there. Then, when she left to join HP, the board compensated her with stock options to cover her loss of options she had at Lucent. Read the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
. The stock options offered at HP is a total different thing, and is already covered in the Hiring section, which reads: "Fiorina received a larger signing offer than any of her predecessors, including: $65 million in restricted stock to compensate her for the Lucent stock and options she left behind,[44]." so you have confused two things and now we have a mess. Please undo your edit.- Cwobeel (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Dig under the surface, however, and the story grows more complicated and less flattering. The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared. Nor were several of her division’s biggest sales, including the giant PathNet deal. [37]
- @Jadeslair: Please see above, I think you are mistaking two different things. Fiorina got $65MM at Lucent, and she left on the table Lucent stock options. That is the reason HP gave her a massive signin bonus to compensate her for that loss. What the article says now is incorrect. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- ok, I will look at everything closely. So, you believe that I am confusing two different things that are both 65 million? Jadeslair (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Jadeslair: Please see above, I think you are mistaking two different things. Fiorina got $65MM at Lucent, and she left on the table Lucent stock options. That is the reason HP gave her a massive signin bonus to compensate her for that loss. What the article says now is incorrect. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Convoluted text
I appreciate the effort in improving the material, but this is gobbledygook and unreadeable (in particular the highlighted):
- "Fiorina has criticized the Iran nuclear agreement, stating there are a lot of reason to be suspicious of the deal. She has stated that Iran was a not a good actor and did not negotiate in good faith. She also stated that if the U.S. wants a good deal then they must walk away sometimes and during this negotiation the U.S. never did. She has said that the U.S. cannot trust the verification components of the deal because Iran does not allow access to military sites and Iran has broken sanctions and inspection agreements in the past. She also said that the U.S. cannot trust the deal just because the international community approved the deal because Russia and China were negotiating on Iran's behalf so that Russia and China can get access to Iran's economy and because the European Union negotiates weak deals."
- Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Edited version looks like the following:
- Fiorina has criticized the Iran nuclear agreement, stating there are a lot of reason to be suspicious of the deal. She has stated that Iran was a not a good actor and did not negotiate in good faith. She also stated that if the U.S. wanted to achieve a good deal then the negotiators on the U.S.'s behalf should have to walked away from the bargaining table and during this specific negotiation (the Iran deal) the U.S. never walked away and lost its bargaining power. She has said that the U.S. cannot trust the verification components of the deal because Iran does not allow access to military sites and Iran has broken sanctions and inspection agreements in the past. She also said that the U.S. cannot trust the deal just because the international community approved the deal. She stated the reason was that Russia and China were negotiating on Iran's behalf and that Russia and China were looking out for their self-interest, specifically they were looking to get access to Iran's economy. She also stated that the deal could not be trusted because the European Union negotiates weak deals.
- "She said", "she has said", "she also said", "she stated, "she has stated". Can we use a better narrative instead of a staccato? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to get more substantive information into the article instead of simply saying "Fiorina says she would walk away from the deal" because that was not all she said and it was not even an accurate representation of what she said about walking away. There was a real lack of substance and whatever attempt at substance that was there in the foreign policy section was not accurate.--ML (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- "She said", "she has said", "she also said", "she stated, "she has stated". Can we use a better narrative instead of a staccato? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
2015 comments by Perkins
If we include comments made by Perkins 10 years after Fiorina's firing, we have to include other commentary as well from other board members and shareholders. Section tagged as POV until this is addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I added some material from these sources which improves the material there with some useful context, but it still needs additional comments from other board members for balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
And given that Perkins letter was in response to the scathing commentary by Andrew Sorkin, [38] as described in the sources provided, we have to also include some of Sorkin's commentary. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
A alternative of having additional comments from other board members, and given that Perkins' letter was paid by her super PAC, I believe that material needs to be moved to the presidential campaign article. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've got no objection to including commentary from other board members, as long as it's not excessive. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Given the spiral that has occurred here in the past, personally I'd prefer to have no opinion-based commentary.CFredkin (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I tend to agree. I will move that entire passage to the Campaign article. There is content there questioning Fiorina's business bonafides and Perkins comments would be useful for counterbalance. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Moved to Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016#Controversy over tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard for a much better fit. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- MaverickLittle I see you disagree. Can you explain why? The reasoning is very simple: this is related to the campaign as the letter was paid by Fiorina's SuperPAC as a way to deflect criticism of her business career. Much better would be to keep the content at the campaign article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem at all with simply naming the board members who have had positive things to say about her, and naming the ones who have had negative things to say about her, with a footnote for each so interested readers can find out more (the footnotes can include not just links but perhaps also quotes for the convenience of readers). This would take probably no more than a single sentence in the main text of this Wikipedia article. If a board member has said both positive and negative things, then it's important for us to not include only one or the other, and important for us to say which came first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- And how do we do that? Perkins was one of the board members that voted to fire her, and now he is saying something else, aided by her Super pac. So, how do we do this? Do we quote what they said then? what they say now she is running for the nomination? It is a massive can of worms if we open that. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem at all with simply naming the board members who have had positive things to say about her, and naming the ones who have had negative things to say about her, with a footnote for each so interested readers can find out more (the footnotes can include not just links but perhaps also quotes for the convenience of readers). This would take probably no more than a single sentence in the main text of this Wikipedia article. If a board member has said both positive and negative things, then it's important for us to not include only one or the other, and important for us to say which came first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- MaverickLittle I see you disagree. Can you explain why? The reasoning is very simple: this is related to the campaign as the letter was paid by Fiorina's SuperPAC as a way to deflect criticism of her business career. Much better would be to keep the content at the campaign article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Politics makes strange bedfellows, even more so when the relationship is strange to begin with. The observation is prompted by a full-page advertisement placed in Thursday's New York Times by Carly for America, the super PAC backing former Hewlett-Packard Chairwoman Carly Fiorina's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. The ad, headlined "The Truth About Carly," features a letter signed by multimillionaire venture capital investor Thomas Perkins defending her management at HP and expressing his support for her candidacy. [ sidebar: "I was...appalled by the reemergence of Tom Perkins and the very active role he was now playing. - Carly Fiorina, in 2006, on her newest, bestest campaign supporter, Tom Perkins" ] It's a curious document. Perkins was a board member of HP during much of Fiorina's tenure as its chairwoman and chief executive (1999-2005). In her 2006 memoir, "Tough Choices," she depicts him as a member of the cabal that forced her out and a close ally of George Keyworth, the director who was her leading adversary. [39]
That's what I mean... if we add Perkins comments, we need to add the context, for what is obviously a political issue, and not much to do with her bonafides as an executive, according to many sources commenting on his letter. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is no can of worms at all. We say something like "Both before and in the time since her resignation, people who were HP board members at that time have made a variety of remarks about her, and about the board's decision. Focussing on the most recent remarks, board members who view her tenure mostly unfavorably (i.e. who support the board's decision) include X, Y, Z while those who view it mostly favorably include A, B, C; of these board members, the views of P, D, and Q have changed substantially over time." Plus footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Cwobeel No. That's not what your job is Cwobeel. You don't get to decide if Perkins means what he says. He said what he said. You don't get to do your own original research and decide that, well, I read so and so AND so and so said that Perkins is not telling the truth and that Perkins is just saying what he is saying now for political reasons. That's not your job. So you personally agree with a some liberal commentator at the LA Times. He has expressed his opinion that Perkins does not mean what he says today. It's fine to have your own personal opinion on whether Perkins is telling the truth or not and it is great that you have a liberal commentator at a reliable source to be saying exactly what you agree with, but it doesn't matter. Why? You have put in the article at least six (6) long-winded quotes from various people to comment on Fiorina's business experience--people that Perkins points out in his letter that were not at HP at the time, did not know the internal discussions of HP's board, and some of them have no business experience at all, and some of them are paid consultants to the HP Family members. But now that one of the most central figures from that time period, the man that was on the Board of HP, left the Board and then returned the HP Board and was instrumental in firing Fiorina comes out and says that he was wrong, the Board was wrong and that Fiorina was a great CEO of HP, you suddenly don't want any long quotes (especially not from him) in the article. It is a joke. You haven't given one good reason to not have Perkins quoted in the article. Not one. The two reasons that you have given are: (1) too many quotes in the article, which of course all of the extremely long ones and most of them were put there by you and they, for the most part, bash Fiorina, and (2) there are articles that exist that basically say that Perkins is telling us what he believes now about Fiorina and he believes that she did a good job and was a great CEO of HP, but these article writers know what Perkins believes better than Perkins himself knows and since you believe the LA Times commentator then we need to leave out all of Perkins quotes because like the LA Times writer said Perkins doesn't know what he is saying or Perkins is lying or, at any rate, you and the LA Times writer know more about what Perkins thinks than Perkins does. You haven't given a good reason not to put in the Perkins quotes. If you want to start trimming the article of quotes then we need to start with your 6 or 7 or 8 long-winded negative quotes that you jammed into the article and dare anyone to remove. You want to trim the article of quotes then let start with those 8 negative ones, ok?--ML (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is no can of worms at all. We say something like "Both before and in the time since her resignation, people who were HP board members at that time have made a variety of remarks about her, and about the board's decision. Focussing on the most recent remarks, board members who view her tenure mostly unfavorably (i.e. who support the board's decision) include X, Y, Z while those who view it mostly favorably include A, B, C; of these board members, the views of P, D, and Q have changed substantially over time." Plus footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
MaverickLittle, what you are accusing Cwobeel of is WP:SYNTH, and frankly, I don't see that happening at all. Currently, consensus !vote-wise is for removal of the content to be replaced at the Fiorina campaign article. I think that is the best move, for removal of undue weight for one thing, but also for the reasons given by Cwobeel and SuperCarnivore591. Please take your rhetoric and accusatory tone down a notch or two, for the sake of collegial discussion and peaceful collaboration. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, no. There is no consensus. That is not true. We just started this discussion. If Cwobeel or you want to trim the article of quotes then you need to start with all of the long-winded Fiorina bashing quotes. This quote is directly on point and neither you or Cwobeel have give one good reason for it to be whitewashed from the article. His comments are more important that all of the quotes in the article so far. Neither you or Cwobeel have provided any reasoning why the one person who had the biggest role in the time period needs to be whitewashed out of the article. Not one. I have explained why the quotes (and he comments on a broad range of issues that are brought up in this article) are directly on point and there is NOT one person quoted so far whose comments are as important or more important that his opinion. There was no closer to the situation and the fact that he has changed his mind is a whole new FACT that is notable for this article. You are leaving out an important notable FACT. Thank you for expressing your opinion but your opinion does not make consensus. I will not be hit over the head with that false "consensus" hooey. There is ZERO consensus does not mean: "I think so and so and therefore consensus is reached and now we will shut down debate." It doesn't work that way.--ML (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, there is consensus. The discussion already occurred; you came to this discussion late, after consensus had already been reached. My opinion alone doesn't make for consensus, but the three of us in on the discussion at the time the content was being discussed does. Like I said, you came to this late. Can't help that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- hey MaverickLittle, can you be a bit more concise, otherwise you run the rick of TL;DR. The commentary about Perkins is all over the news; it is not just a "liberal New York Times journalist's" opinion. And the context is needed if you want to keep that material here. Much better is to have it at the campaign article, otherwise you will have to accept adding commentary about Fiorina from other board members, including the sons of the HP founders who had very harsh words for Fiorina, as we can't just have one board member's comments. So, please state what you want to do. You have two options, (1) keep the material from Perkins + commentary here (including material from the original article that prompted this letter – after all the letter starts with a mention of that article The Truth About Carly" New York Times 8/27/15 By Tom Perkins. RESPONSE TO: Andrew Ross Sorkin, August 17, 2015 “Carly Fiorina’s Business Record: Not So Sterling” – and adding comments from other board members, or (2) move the material to the campaign article. What say you? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
(←) There's already significant "context" for the challenges HP was facing and how outside individuals speculated that played a role in her forced resignation. The comments by Tom Perkins certainly reflect a critical viewpoint of why he believed, as a leader on their board, they made the decisions they did. We should pare his thoughts down to what is essential and include those. Justen (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Another interesting aspect is that this "letter" was not "published in the New York Times". It was an ad.[1] So, an ad is a primary source and not notable by definition, and the only way we can refer to an ad is by sourcing it to secondary sources. These sources provide the context, which can't be ignored. Case in point. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Fiorina Super-PAC Takes Out Full-Page New York Times Ad Defending Business Record". Bloomberg. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
- Primary sources are acceptable in certain circumstances. As a key director at the company, I don't think I would rush to call his position on Fiorina's tenure "not notable by definition." In addition to the Bloomberg article you've linked, reliable sources already exist covering the significance of Perkins' viewpoint, the relevance of the ad, and the "context" you were looking for...
- Nonetheless, "context" isn't arguably disputable: he was a director of the company with a significant viewpoint that isn't otherwise covered in our article. Going out of our way to exclude it violates wp:npov, not the opposite. Justen (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
(←) It appears like this article now has numerous, at times very long, quotes of various peoples/orgazizations positive and negative points of view. While this might address "balance issues" in the article, it makes for a highly dramatized article. These create multiple POV issues and a poorly constructed article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see that many quotes, but if there is such a perception, it should not not that difficult to paraphrase and summarize. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently. Justen believes there is consensus to include the content on Perkins. I don't see a clear consensus here -- did consensus occur somewhere else other than this talk page? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) It occurred here, although I'll grant that you weren't in agreement with the consensus. A significant majority of commenters above agree the content should be included. I agree that there's not a clear consensus on brevity or the section it should live in, but outright removing reliably sourced content as opposed to finding a compromise for its placement is a mistake. Justen (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't been part of this discussion yet. The Perkins bit should stay out. Perkins flip-flops his stance at a suspiciously opportune time, making it promotional, paid for, and political; as such, it should be kept in the Fiorina for Prez article where it can be accompanied by explanatory (and contradictory) text. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're valuing your opinion over coverage from reliable sources. It's clearly an issue of the campaign, and it's gotten enough coverage to make it notable solely in that regard. But the context it provides in course of her forced resignation is ridiculously undeniable. Justen (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"A significant majority of commenters above agree the content should be included"
. Well, Justen, since you seem to see something I don't ("a significant majority"), perhaps you can point out who is in that majority. Then how about point out those not in that majority. Then we can see who is where on this and decide if we have consensus or not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. Given the nature of that "letter", which is nothing more than an ad paid by Fiorina's PAC, this material does not belong in her bio. It has been moved to the political campaign article were it belongs alongside commentary from the sources that reported about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am also opposed to including this content in this bio as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTPROMO. I'm especially opposed to direct quotes, when really we should use third-party analysis to summarize the material. In this case though, Perkin's opinion doesn't represent a widespread view of the subject and seems to be nothing more than an advertisement. - MrX 13:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's correct. It doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in her campaign article, which is why it was moved. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not re-add the disputed material, as there is consensus for excluding it. See also WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@MaverickLittle: don't you think that it is a little disingenuous to argue against edit warring when it is you doing the warring? Please read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Horse Hockey. Don't edit war. It takes two to tango and you are an active participant. Don't edit war.--ML (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also, focus on how to make the article better and stop whitewashing the article of information you don't particularly like. I believe you whitewash of notable, reliably sourced information that puts Fiorina's firing in a more positive light is clearly a violation of BLP. You need to stop your violation of BLP.--ML (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) The discussion above explains the rationale. You can chose to put your head in the sand, but that is not helpful. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cwobeel, you have been hangin out with editors that constantly point to templates that are not relevant. You just gave me another template that is not relevant. I know you know better than that. Also, there are several editors that believe the information should be in the article. Also, removing information that is historic fact and it puts the subject in more positive light is a violation of BLP. There is no discussion above about that. And the 3RR area is not the proper place for that discussion.--ML (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) The discussion above explains the rationale. You can chose to put your head in the sand, but that is not helpful. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also, focus on how to make the article better and stop whitewashing the article of information you don't particularly like. I believe you whitewash of notable, reliably sourced information that puts Fiorina's firing in a more positive light is clearly a violation of BLP. You need to stop your violation of BLP.--ML (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I've had enough of this crap. He may not be at or beyond 3RR, but there is definitely disruptive edit warring behavior going on. If anyone's interested, see this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Once again this article has fell victim to pro and anti Fiorina POV's. These conflicts need to be worked out through talk page consensus instead of edit warring. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Based on your comments a few minutes ago at AN3, I assume you think I am in the "anti" camp. Because of that, I am going to challenge you to back up your claim(s) with something that would give indication as to where I fall in regard to Fiorina and how I've edited this article and commented at this talk page, Ism schism. As far as I recall, I've never given any indication about my personal POV re: Fiorina. If I have, it certainly hasn't been recently and it definitely hasn't been noted by how I edit the article. Diffs, perhaps? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- My comments and diffs are at AN3. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's no need to create a new discussion to complain about perceived biases. I'm sure that many here are neither pro- nor anti- Fiorina. I recommend commenting in the thread above so that we can better determine consensus. - MrX 23:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Protected for three days
As per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MaverickLittle reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Page protected for 3 days), I've protected m:The Wrong Version of the article for three days. Please take the time to develop consensus ab initio. The protection can be extended if necessary. Thank you and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't checked out this article in weeks. Sad to see it has turned into a virtual campaign pamphlet. Notable, relevant facts have been buffed away, minimized, and spun -- from the number of employees post-merger ("...worldwide"), to her HP years, now made to sound as if she were a lone champion railing against the board's foolhardy and short-sighted opposition... the raw fact she has never held office (a simple fact, right? Perhaps meriting a statement of six words: "Fiorina has never held public office"), it now includes a multiline "counterargument" from Fiorina including a Fox news quote including her claim the American people want people outside the "professional political class". What? Contemporaneous sentiment and commentary on her performance at HP-- important context-- has been excised. Cited facts are pulled from articles without their original context (which is sort of amusing when you go and read the source). The above-the-fold summary is atrocious and very POV. This article has no nuetrality indeed. It reads like there must have been a focused effort to shape this article for her political benefit.--Replysixty (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that both POV sides are upset that the article doesn't read more anti or pro Fiorina, and that in itself is the problem. Editors need to be working towards a quality article, and stop getting upset when it does no read to their POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape, in particular as it presents a false balance. NPOV is not achieved by adding pro and con viewpoints, but rather, it is achieved by presenting a subject in accordance and in proportion of viewpoints held by reliable sources. It is a fact that the main accomplishment of Florina is her tenure at HP and her business career as a whole, and the overwhelming majority of sources have a pretty critical viewpoint. The article needs to reflect that reality. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ism schism, please stop with the generalized finger pointing. It's not helpful. You are right that we need to be working toward a quality article, but the other comments are just going to inflame more of the same crap some of us (in the neutral camp) have already been fighting against. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Never held public office
... a highly notable aspect of this person's bio, given that she is a politician. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting talk page section. Yes, it's 100% true, and is a notable part of her biography. The issue, however, is whether it belongs in the lead, instead of only later in the article. Notice that it is a purely negative statement, which is highly unusual in a lead. For example, Hillary Clinton has never run a business, and yet we don't put that in the HRC lead (or anywhere else). That Fiorina has never held public office is primarily an argument against her presidential candidacy, and it ought to be presented in the context of that candidacy together with other context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it belongs in the lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- We are already aware that you think so. A further reason for introducing this material later in the article is that it is somewhat redundant in the lead; if she had occupied a notable public office then the lead would mention it, and — since it doesn't — the intelligent reader who cares about this will assume that she hasn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your argument does not make sense. Clinton is not applying or attempting to be a CEO. We are describing Fiotina as a politician in the first sentence, and yet she never held public office. That is a very notable aspect that should be included in the lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- (and BTW, the fact that she never held public office is not a negative, if one is to follow the current public sentiment is about politicians). - Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- We are already aware that you think so. A further reason for introducing this material later in the article is that it is somewhat redundant in the lead; if she had occupied a notable public office then the lead would mention it, and — since it doesn't — the intelligent reader who cares about this will assume that she hasn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it belongs in the lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting talk page section. Yes, it's 100% true, and is a notable part of her biography. The issue, however, is whether it belongs in the lead, instead of only later in the article. Notice that it is a purely negative statement, which is highly unusual in a lead. For example, Hillary Clinton has never run a business, and yet we don't put that in the HRC lead (or anywhere else). That Fiorina has never held public office is primarily an argument against her presidential candidacy, and it ought to be presented in the context of that candidacy together with other context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I will start an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Should the lede say that Fiorina has never held public office?
Fiorina is described in the opening sentence as an American Republican presidential candidate and former business executive who currently chairs the non-profit philanthropic organization Good360. Should the lead mention that Fiorina has never held public office?
Comments
- Yes. This is an article about a former business executive and a current politician, and mentioning this fact in the lead is necessary to provide a complete biographical picture. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I can't imagine why anyone would think it shouldn't be in the lede. It's pertinent, relevant, and germane in an article about an individual running for public office. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, not everything that is well-sourced and true and notable belongs in the lead, as opposed to belonging later in the Wikipedia article. This particular factoid is an argument about her suitability for the U.S. presidency, and belongs later in the Wikipedia article with other context about that. It is also a purely negative statement, which is highly unusual in a lead. For example, Hillary Clinton has never run a business, and yet we don't put that in the HRC lead (or anywhere else). Furthermore, this factoid is redundant in the lead; if she had occupied a notable public office then the lead would mention it, and — since it doesn't — the intelligent reader who cares about this will assume that she hasn't occupied public office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes - This is a important piece of information for a biography about someone running for the highest public office in the United States. - MrX 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- No This is a bio, not a discussion of her fitness for public office. It could perhaps be mentioned in the body of her bio, but not in the lead.CFredkin (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- No The reader can find out by reading her biography in detail that she has never held public office, and pointedly stating that she hasn't in the lead, I just don't see a purpose to it. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. The fact is important to her political campaign, promoted by Fiorina as an advantage, critiqued by others as a disadvantage, and generally commented on by many sources. Even the friendly source the Politics and Governance Portal says that "One of Fiorina's major liabilities is a complete lack of a political resume, as she has never held any public office." She's running as a "political outsider" who is happy to report that her supporters say that they are "delighted" that she has not ever held elective office. The UK's Guardian says "Fiorina has never held political office and has fought one political campaign..." So the issue is significant inside and outside of the US. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- No It is not a defining characteristic of the subject of this article that is essential for readers to understand. Moreover, it's inappropriate and unworkable to include in the lead of this or any article information about what this or any subject has not done. If significant sources have discussed this lack of experience in a specific context then it may be appropriate to include that in the appropriate section of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes Politics is most CERTAINLY a driver of traffic and readers to this page (if not THE driver). Therefore commenting on her Political career thus far is important in the lead Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 16:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- No Besides the concerns laid out by others, this isn't notable enough for the lede, particularly if by "public office" we mean "elected office." It's not as if it's unheard-of for Presidential candidates to not have come from a political background. The top two republican polling candidates (as of now) don't. Eisenhower didn't. Reagan only head one public office before the presidency and had a background in entertainment. Further, do we think that Wikipedia is burying important information and potentially misleading people by putting it further down in the article? That seems like a stretch, especially since it can be so easily inferred by the current lead that she hasn't held office before, because all other candidates who have, it IS in the lede. Mreleganza (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, This is a biography, not a campaign nor an anti-campaign page. She has not done a lot of other items also should we list them all. Is the fact that she has not held office a significant event in her life? No. Jadeslair (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Threaded discusssion
Most sources that profile Fiorina, include this fact:
- "While she has never held public office -- and lost her only political race, a 2010 Senate bid in California -- Fiorina said her status as an outsider is an asset because professional politicians have failed everyday Americans." [40]
- "But Fiorina, 60, has considerable challenges, chiefly that she has sought but never held public office. Lingering disarray from her last campaign could also haunt her next one, undercutting her image as an effective manager. " [41]
- "Fiona has run for public office once before. She challenged California’s incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer back in 2010. Fiorina lost, and it wasn’t close." [42]
- "Despite never being elected to public office, Mrs. Fiorina has been a regular in Republican circles since her high-profile ouster from Hewlett-Packard in 2006." [43]
- "Fiorina, 60, has never held public office. A 2010 run for US senate collapsed amid images of private jets and million-dollar yachts. Now, she hopes the revived record of a dot-com businesswoman will vault her over the otherwise all-male Republican field of mostly professional politicians – or at least lead to a spot as one of their vice-presidential running mates to face Hillary Clinton head-on." [44]
- Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do any of them include it in the article title or the lead sentence?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- These are all article profiling Fiorina, so yes. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which one says in the article title or lead sentence anything about what she has not done?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- These are all article profiling Fiorina, so yes. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do any of them include it in the article title or the lead sentence?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This is what we have as the opening sentence of the lengthy Carly Fiorina#Political career section:
Fiorina has never held public office,[1][2][3] but said that her status as an outsider is a positive, given that in her opinion, professional politicians have failed to deliver to the American people,[1] stating in an interview with Fox News in 2015 that "82% of the American people now think we need people from outside the professional political class to serve in public office."[4]
References
- ^ a b Jackson, David (May 4, 2015). "Fiorina jumps into GOP presidential race". USA Today. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
- ^ Rucker, Philip (November 25, 2014). "Carly Fiorina actively explores 2016 presidential run but faces GOP critics". Washington Post. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
But Fiorina, 60, has considerable challenges, chiefly that she has sought but never held public office.- ^ "Carly Fiorina will run for president as a successful tech CEO. Silicon Valley says that's a fantasy". The Guardian.
Fiorina, 60, has never held public office.- ^ "Carly Fiorina highlights outsider role: most in US 'have never heard my name". The Guardian.
As such, we ought to include a mention in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly, because the lead section is a summary of important article content. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Layoffs and severance package
It is really quite absurd not to include the dual facts that Carly:
- laid off 30,000 people
- took home a $22 million severance package
These are important, verifiable facts about her time at HP. They are not POV, they are not "she reinvented HP" or "she ruined HP," they are factual and let the reader decide. 209.2.223.3 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- If we're going to mention the layoffs, then we should mention the change to employee counts pre and post merger as well. This has been discussed at length above.
- The severance when she left HP is mentioned in the body of the article, but is not significant enough to warrant mention in the lead.CFredkin (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at length, for example here and there was no consensus for adding this borderline original research to the lead. The significant fact is that a lot of people were laid off under her leadership. It is a far lesser point that the net headcount was eventually offset by a merger and subsequent hiring activities. - MrX 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was indeed extensive discussion on this subject. The last stable version included references to both the layoffs and the employees counts. They were then both removed with this series of edits. We should either include neither or both until there's consensus otherwise.CFredkin (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was discussion about it at the original research notice board as well, and there was certainly no consensus there to include only the anti-Fiorina data in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. The previous discussions related to adding the material about subsequent hiring and net headcount resulting from a merger. I don't see that there was much objection to the layoffs being summarized in the lead, especially given the extensive coverage in sources.- MrX 19:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The noticeboard discussion is here. Selectively including only the anti-Fiorina data in the lead is vastly more objectionable than including balanced data in the lead. Which would you prefer, MrX, including the balanced data in the lead, or leaving it all for the main body of the article? The absolute worst option is what we have in the lead now. I tend to agree with User:Blueboar that, "I don't think any of this belongs in the article's lead. Putting it in the lead give the entire issue UNDUE weight", but would be willing to include the balanced data if you insist. The lead now is POV rubbish, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the ORN discussion involving only four editors only shows that two people favor inclusion of just the layoffs; one favors inclusion of the layoffs and the net headcount following the layoffs; and one favors leaving both being left out of the lead. The layoffs are a discrete fact. Whether it's significant enough to merit inclusion in the lead is a matter of debate. The information about the later employee headcount is one that seems to be manufactured by Fiorina or her campaign. As far as I can tell, it is a fringe view that does not belong in the lead. If I had to make a choice, I would prefer to leave both out of the lead, rather than include both, but I still prefer just the layoffs in the lead per WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The noticeboard discussion is here. Selectively including only the anti-Fiorina data in the lead is vastly more objectionable than including balanced data in the lead. Which would you prefer, MrX, including the balanced data in the lead, or leaving it all for the main body of the article? The absolute worst option is what we have in the lead now. I tend to agree with User:Blueboar that, "I don't think any of this belongs in the article's lead. Putting it in the lead give the entire issue UNDUE weight", but would be willing to include the balanced data if you insist. The lead now is POV rubbish, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. The previous discussions related to adding the material about subsequent hiring and net headcount resulting from a merger. I don't see that there was much objection to the layoffs being summarized in the lead, especially given the extensive coverage in sources.- MrX 19:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was discussion about it at the original research notice board as well, and there was certainly no consensus there to include only the anti-Fiorina data in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was indeed extensive discussion on this subject. The last stable version included references to both the layoffs and the employees counts. They were then both removed with this series of edits. We should either include neither or both until there's consensus otherwise.CFredkin (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at length, for example here and there was no consensus for adding this borderline original research to the lead. The significant fact is that a lot of people were laid off under her leadership. It is a far lesser point that the net headcount was eventually offset by a merger and subsequent hiring activities. - MrX 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I object to the inclusion of this in the lead. This is a minor issue, but should be in the body. But look at say hillary's lead and the absence of emailgate or benghazi. Or eric holder and fast and furious, or any number of other articles. This is not a topic that defines Fiorina's reputation (much as some would like it to) and should not be in the lead. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this bit is sufficient to describe her tenure at HP in a neutral manner:
In 2002, Fiorina oversaw the biggest high-tech merger in history up to that time, with rival computer company Compaq, which made HP the world's largest personal computer manufacturer.[7][8] On February 9, 2005, the HP board of directors forced Fiorina to resign as chief executive officer and chairman over disagreements about the company's performance, disappointing earning reports, and her resistance to transferring authority to division heads.[9][10][11]
This bit is gratuitous and undue:
Its stock price had fallen by approximately half its value compared to when Fiorina had started, while the overall NASDAQ index had decreased by about a quarter owing to turbulence in the tech sector.[12][13][14] She took home a US$22 million severance package.[15] HP stock jumped by 6.9 percent when she was fired.[16]
CFredkin (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The stock market is notoriously fickle, and so putting data like that in the lead seems like undue weight to me. If people insist upon it being in the lead, then I support including some balance, like the NASDAQ figure. Why include the severance info without saying whether it was unusual or not? We don't say what salary she had, so why say what severance pay she got?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with removing the "gratuitous" three sentences from the lead. If we are to praise her for overseeing "the biggest high-tech merger in history" then I don't see how we can omit that she laid off a small city's worth of employees. Perhaps we need to conduct a straw poll to see how many editors support layoffs in the lead. It's a matter of editorial discretion, so I don't think we need full-blown RfC. - MrX 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- You really think it would be NPOV to say in the lead how many people she laid off without giving the slightest clue how many people worked in the company? And without giving the slightest clue that she also hired tens of thousands of people?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Our sources (Washington Post, Boston Globe, New York Times) are silent on the size of HP during the layoffs, so no, we should not give the size of HP's workforce at various times during the span of the layoffs. Including that original research may seem neutral, but our policy is clear that our content should be proportional to coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't allow for false equivalence. - MrX 21:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The LA Times, Politifact, WaPo and others provide context. You support stripping off the context and putting this factoid in the lead. Several other editors have objected to that, and for very good reason. We have considerable editorial discretion about what goes in the lead, and I emphatically oppose including this factoid devoid of context. We would be better off either providing the context or following Blueboar's advice. Sometimes factoids are misleading by themselves, or create a problem of undue weight, or both.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The 30,000 employees that were laid off is the significant fact. The context is important, but not a significant, fact worthy of inclusion in the lead. We seem to agree that the lead is a matter of editorial discretion. I will start a poll (below) to try to determine how other edits view this.- MrX 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The LA Times, Politifact, WaPo and others provide context. You support stripping off the context and putting this factoid in the lead. Several other editors have objected to that, and for very good reason. We have considerable editorial discretion about what goes in the lead, and I emphatically oppose including this factoid devoid of context. We would be better off either providing the context or following Blueboar's advice. Sometimes factoids are misleading by themselves, or create a problem of undue weight, or both.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Our sources (Washington Post, Boston Globe, New York Times) are silent on the size of HP during the layoffs, so no, we should not give the size of HP's workforce at various times during the span of the layoffs. Including that original research may seem neutral, but our policy is clear that our content should be proportional to coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't allow for false equivalence. - MrX 21:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- You really think it would be NPOV to say in the lead how many people she laid off without giving the slightest clue how many people worked in the company? And without giving the slightest clue that she also hired tens of thousands of people?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with removing the "gratuitous" three sentences from the lead. If we are to praise her for overseeing "the biggest high-tech merger in history" then I don't see how we can omit that she laid off a small city's worth of employees. Perhaps we need to conduct a straw poll to see how many editors support layoffs in the lead. It's a matter of editorial discretion, so I don't think we need full-blown RfC. - MrX 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Straw poll: Should the lead include a mention that 30,000 HP jobs were cut under Fiorina's leadership?
Should the lead include a mention that 30,000 HP jobs were cut under Fiorina's leadership between 1999 to 2005, irrespective of any other content? Please add your signature under the appropriate heading and ,if you're inclined, discuss it under threaded discussion.- MrX 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes
- - MrX 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- - - Cwobeel (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- -Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- No
- Threaded discussion
It is a defining aspect of her tenure at HP according to a massive preponderance of sources, which in turn, is the most notable aspect of her bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am willing to include it in the lead, but only if context is provided as it was for quite a while until yesterday. Without the context, the factoid is highly misleading, undue weight, and pov.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe the straw poll accurately represents the discussion. It would probably be more accurately phrased as "Should the lead include a mention that 30,000 jobs were cut under Fiorina's leadership, without mentioning that by 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001?"CFredkin (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that would be a much better poll question. It is also significant how many people worked at HP. If ten trillion people worked there, then that would put the information in a much different light than if ten people worked there. When she left, there were 150,000 workers there. This is significant even apart from how many she hired and fired.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Clearer citation needed
The current citation for Carly Fiorina's ability to speak in Italian is a link to Google book search result of her book Tough Choices: A Memoir. If that means a piece of evidence can indeed be found in the book, please change the citation to reflect that.--Quest for Truth (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Campaign Debts
This edit has been repeatedly restored despite having a number of issues: It uses POV language (e.g. use of "finally"), removes part of response by Fiorina's campaign, and includes redundancy. Since this is a WP:BLP, the burden is on the editor making these changes to establish consensus for them before restoring them.CFredkin (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The content seems WP:UNDUE for a biography and Davenport1974 obliterated the source for some reason.- MrX 17:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Top line vs bottom line
... explained [45]. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)